Welcome, Tandi

[Jason 1978]

I never did, but you chose to ignore questions I asked you in this thread nevertheless.

Fair point - I will try and address them in the morning.

 

[Jason 1978]

Sagan was right. It's not their beliefs which reveal people to be stupid. It's their behaviour when the truth is revealed to them.

So what are you offering Paj, other than smart ass comments like this ? - and luring believers onto sites like this so you can have a laugh and take the piss out of them.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

So a quote didn't work out for you. No need to stamp your little feet.

 

[Jason 1978]

Asking for evidence, particularly of extraordinary claims, is a sensible, and often instructive, thing to do - no matter what the forum. Why would anyone think otherwise?

OK, fair dinkum. But don't complain and start carping when believers come onto sceptic boards and offer their point of view without also offering the kind of "evidence" you demand.

Because I shall say what I believe, and if I am insulted, it will be returned with interest added.

 

[Jason 1978]

So a quote didn't work out for you. No need to stamp your little feet.

The quote worked - you don't.

 

[Chocolate Chip]

OK, fair dinkum. But don't complain and start carping when believers come onto sceptic boards and offer their point of view without also offering the kind of "evidence" you demand.

Why don't you like having your beliefs questioned?

If we ask for evidence, it's not because we are attacking you.
We would like to know if there is anything to what you claim.
Surely that can't be too hard to understand.

Would you buy a car without test-driving it first?
Would you believe the claim of the car salesman that the car is tip-top, without having evidence to support that claim? ie Inspection Sticker, test drive, mechanic's inspection?

Do you expect us to believe something without evidence? Would you take the word of the car salesman alone?

 

[juryjone]

Sadly, I also have to put up with closed mind, one dimensional, no brain cretins like you on believer boards as well.

What exactly have you given us in your last post other than offer insults ?

I love the little offering at the bottom of Janice's posts. A quote from the late Carl Sagan as follows:-

"People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelliegent people, is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs"

Why do you think I have continued to read these boards for three years now? For some sort of emotionally onanistic experience? "Boy, I hope nobody offers any kind of evidence of the paranormal, because that would rock my world!" Of course not.

I would like for you to show some evidence. That's what I was asking, indirectly, in my last post. As I said then, I don't believe you will even attempt to give evidence, no matter how long you post here. Please, prove me wrong.

By the way, TheBoyPaj, thank you for stating so well what my other responses to Jason would have been.

 

[Jono]

Sagan was right. It's not their beliefs which reveal people to be stupid. It's their behaviour when the truth is revealed to them.

Well I basicly agree with this quote above... still... what is true and false... right and wrong... are not the same as what is science and what is not... or what is faith and what is not for that matter.

I agree that it's not their held beliefs or disbeliefs (same thing in away, disbelief is just another form of belief) which reveal people to be stupid as much as the behaviour when a difference of opinion/belief is presented to them.

 

[Sharon]

I love the little offering at the bottom of Janice's posts. A quote from the late Carl Sagan as follows:-

"People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelliegent people, is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs"

Hi Jason

Just to say ( not that it matters one way or the other, neither here nor there) but that sig is at the bottom of my posts not Janice's.

Sharon

 

[Ossai]

Jason 1978

Christians seriously use the Bible as evidence of God and the sanctity of Jesus Christ. Other religions do the same. It's up to them and they don't have to supply hard evidence, neither is the onus on them to do so.

Christians claim the bible is evidence. However the claim does not make it so.

What appalling insecurity afflicts sceptics that they constantly demand that believers produce hard evidence to support their claims. Why can't they get over themselves and just let it be ?

If you don’t like science and technology then protest it and go live in a mud hut and eat only what you can hunt and gather.

I have already posted what I consider to be a good article about orbs, with a sound technical explanation. If you decide not to acept it, then that's up to you. I'm here to debate reasonably, not constantly provide "proof".

Where, provide the link again.

There is precious little counter evidence from sceptics to disprove the existence of the paranormal.

Because there is no evidence presented by the believers. The believers have the burden of proof on their shoulders. By trying to shift it, they expose themselves as having nothing to base their claims on to begin with.

Janice

one thing I am is consistent, I have repeated my thoughts / views / debate points countless times on here, just refer back, and you will see that everything I have posted is consistent.

Consistent proselytizing and nothing of substance.

I can't speak for Mia Dolan, as I have never met the women, but if she did agree to take the RANDI test then back out like Sylvia Brown, she obviously does not rate her ability very highly.

Considering that the Randi Challenge is open to everyone, what does that say about how psychics/mediums ‘rate their abilities?’

Ossai

 

[Sharon]

Why don't you like having your beliefs questioned?

If we ask for evidence, it's not because we are attacking you.
We would like to know if there is anything to what you claim.

Hi Jason .

Chip's right. I for one would give my back teeth, painful as the removal would be, to be 100% sure that your claims/beliefs are the real Mccoy. I understand if you feel like it's an attack as compared to believers boards it can and does seem rather blunt on here. But I've learnt as a ex-member of a believers board that personal experiences count for nothing. And quite rightly so. I could list, like many others here, personal experiences but if you checked out the 'experiences' as I did you will find there is an explanation that offers an explanation that is not paranormal. A different laungauge is spoken on here. I'll stand tall at the risk of being attacked and say 'sometimes' I don't think the way sceptics communicate with believers, like yourself, is helpful. Not because I think believers are weak, christ, I've had some right hum dingers myselff with believers(as an ex-believer), they can can be as arragant as the next man in my experience, but because of name calling. I can see how words like 'nuts/stupid ect' don't help. But at the same time believers in paranormal don't help to bridge the gap in getting the 'hunp' when asked for evidence. People on here, from what I've learned in my short time, have heard the 'personal experience' card before, too many times I suspect. I suspect they experienced or read about it ten fold. It doesn't cut the mustard/get the baby bathed. So I'm asking you, if you don't mind, what is the meeting point? How can sceptics and believers in paranormal meet in the middle and communicate? From what I've seen so far with regards of arragance and name calling it seems six of one and half a dozen of the other. I ask you not because I want to put you on the spot but because your new, you have no history here. How can the two sides meet to chat?

Sharon

 

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Jason1978
What appalling insecurity afflicts sceptics that they constantly demand that believers produce hard evidence to support their claims. Why can't they get over themselves and just let it be ?

It's called sympathy and compassion. Magical thinking kills. All the time, people give up on evidence-based medicine and die when their unproven hocus-pocus panacea fails. There are also people who are cheated out of their money regularly. If they would stop and seriously look at the evidence, they wouldn't be victimized.

If the paranormal does exist, we have to test it under the strictest of conditions. Whenever someone blindly accepts something, they don't search for evidence. Because of that laziness, they waste time. Take a look at what the believers in this thread have been doing: Rather than simply provide evidence, they just repeat their blind convictions. Rather than try to come up with evidence that can't be explained by mundane answers, they complain about the existence of those mundane answers.

 

[H3LL]

All this seems to come down to the "fire-breathing dragon in my garage".

The dragon is undetectable by any means.

We have the question, "What is the difference between an undetectable fire-breathing dragon and no dragon at all?"

The answer...none

This thread is split between those that wish to believe in the dragon only on the word of another person and those that understand there is no dragon.

The former are open to exploitation by the wicked.

The latter seek to educate and protect the gullible.

"You can lead a horse to water......."



Must go. My dragon needs feeding. It has a medium appetite.

 

[Mojo]

A quote from the late Carl Sagan as follows:-

"People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons."

OK, Jason, what are your reasons for believing in the paranormal, then?

 

[Jason 1978]

Hi Jason .

Chip's right. I for one would give my back teeth, painful as the removal would be, to be 100% sure that your claims/beliefs are the real Mccoy. I understand if you feel like it's an attack as compared to believers boards it can and does seem rather blunt on here. But I've learnt as a ex-member of a believers board that personal experiences count for nothing. And quite rightly so. I could list, like many others here, personal experiences but if you checked out the 'experiences' as I did you will find there is an explanation that offers an explanation that is not paranormal. A different laungauge is spoken on here. I'll stand tall at the risk of being attacked and say 'sometimes' I don't think the way sceptics communicate with believers, like yourself, is helpful. Not because I think believers are weak, christ, I've had some right hum dingers myselff with believers(as an ex-believer), they can can be as arragant as the next man in my experience, but because of name calling. I can see how words like 'nuts/stupid ect' don't help. But at the same time believers in paranormal don't help to bridge the gap in getting the 'hunp' when asked for evidence. People on here, from what I've learned in my short time, have heard the 'personal experience' card before, too many times I suspect. I suspect they experienced or read about it ten fold. It doesn't cut the mustard/get the baby bathed. So I'm asking you, if you don't mind, what is the meeting point? How can sceptics and believers in paranormal meet in the middle and communicate? From what I've seen so far with regards of arragance and name calling it seems six of one and half a dozen of the other. I ask you not because I want to put you on the spot but because your new, you have no history here. How can the two sides meet to chat?

Sharon

Thanks Sharon - sorry I didn't name you when I quoted Carl Sagen earlier.

You ask what the meeting point is for a reasoned debate. Firstly, it would help if sceptics didn't offer extremely nasty personal insults towards believers - either the believers will go, or it will start a flame war. Why do they feel the need to do this ?

With regard to hard evidence, and it is a fair point, we have a bit of a problem. Because, quite honestly, the kind of evidence required by sceptics, pretty obviously, is not yet available. The paranormal is extremely nebulous, a bit like running water over your hand, then clenching your fist and expecting to hold it. We are talking about the interface between life and death here.

I think that in a few years with further advances in technology, we may be encountering devices of extreme sensitivity, which may prove, even to the most arch sceptic, that anomalous energy does exist, which is capable of independent thought. I certainly hope so.

That is my final offering on JREF, as it is clear that with one or two exceptions, debate is impossible due to the closed minds posting here. I am now returning to believer boards, with the earnest wish that sceptics would keep out, or at least, if they do come, try to debate reasonably and stop screaming "evidence" and insulting the regular posters there.

Sharon, thanks to you and Janice and one or two others, for at least attempting to open a reasonable discussion.

Good luck,

Jason - exits and deletes desktop shortcut to JREF.

 

[Janice]

Hi Janice.

I read your post earlier have come back and Bill has got there before me.

My question is the same as Bill's.

You said somewhere that Derren isn't a medium. But some believers think he is Janice. They also this Shirley Ghostman is too!, but that's another story. I have never been to see one of the celebrity mediums, I have only in the past gone to the local Spiritualist Church to see mediums. What I saw at the SC was no different to what Derren Brown did on the Messiah show. So a part of me 'can' understand why believers say his really is a medium.

Sharon I have not seen Derren Brown work, and I only draw my opinions by what I have seen in person, but one thing I have seen is quite a few mediums practicing in spiritual churches (a large majority in my opinion giving cold readings, or evidence that could apply to anyone in the audience). I could count on one hand a few who, I personally thought were not cold reading.

I presume they do this rather than admit it's nothing more than cold readings, because cold readings takes away the comfort they have had from supposed contact with a loved one. But what I don't understand is when people say he isn't a medium, that they accept it for what it is, that he is cold reading, but then still think that there are people who can communicate with our relatives that have died. What does a real medium do that is different from Derren Brown? I just don't get it? On the forum I used to hang out on some would say " oh yes, he exposes the charlatons out there, yet they still believed that some mediums where geniune.

How do they tell the difference?

For me personally, a real medium would be able to locate the person in the audience first time, confirm the relative giving the information (a first name, not just an initial), how they died, where they lived, what they did for a job and describe their personality and physical features. Also give an approximate time of passing (i.e. years / month / day). This is something Derren Brown does not do. This is survival evidence, not cold reading and not making predictions.

Who are the mediums that are genuine?

There are very few mediums I have seen that give evidence as I stated above, and the only way that I have encountered what I would class as non cold reading is by attending demonstrations (most of which have sent me off to sleep) and meeting them face to face. I would be happy to name the mediums that I have met, and think have a genuine ability, but they would only get slated on this forum. I can only draw my opinions from experience, and appreciate that majority of people on this forum do not believe in mediumship, but unless they have actually gone out there met mediums, attended demonstrations / trance sessions / sceances etc. how can they tell me that what I have experienced and seen is untrue. Sharon, you will have to gain your own experiences to draw your own conclusions. Finally, I cannot comment on why some believers see Derren Brown as a medium, but to me mediumship is providing solid evidence first time, not just guessing and fishing for information, which is how the majority work. I have probably seen in excess of 100 mediums demonstrate, and would only rate 3 out of all I have seen.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Janice: For me personally, a real medium would be able to locate the person in the audience first time, confirm the relative giving the information (a first name, not just an initial), how they died, where they lived, what they did for a job and describe their personality and physical features. Also give an approximate time of passing (i.e. years / month / day). This is something Derren Brown does not do. This is survival evidence, not cold reading and not making predictions.

So, how do you rule out HOT reading with the three mediums you rate as the real thing? You obviously visit a lot of mediums -- they probably know more about you than you do. Have you never heard of the "blue books" and "poems" that mediums use to share information on sitters?

 

[Janice]

With regard to hard evidence, and it is a fair point, we have a bit of a problem. Because, quite honestly, the kind of evidence required by sceptics, pretty obviously, is not yet available. The paranormal is extremely nebulous, a bit like running water over your hand, then clenching your fist and expecting to hold it. We are talking about the interface between life and death here.

Jason - you have got it in one. This is what I have tried to explain, for any sceptic that is looking for evidence, the best they can expect at the moment is to experience it first hand, that is until either someone takes the Randi test & passes or it is proved scientifically.

Janice

 

[Janice]

So, how do you rule out HOT reading with the three mediums you rate as the real thing? You obviously visit a lot of mediums -- they probably know more about you than you do. Have you never heard of the "blue books" and "poems" that mediums use to share information on sitters?

Mighty Thor - just because I attend demonstrations, I do not go for a peronsal reading. As for these blue books, one of the mediums I peronally think are excellent (and have trained with) does a lot of work in the public domain, they most definitely do not use the blue book approach, they demonstrate in front of audiences somestimes with more than 2000 people attending, and do sittings the rest of the week, it would be physically impossible to remember personal details of 40+ people per week, as well as extensive travelling and demonstrations, time would not permit. If you like to think that all mediums work with a 'blue book' I will let you carry on with this thought, but perhaps you could try working out the practicalities of this, as the best known mediums would certainly have been caught out if this is how they worked.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Great, now we are getting somewhere.

OK what paranormal events exist? Can you be more specific?

Shall we start with ghosts?

I can't see any reason not to believe in ghosts per se, but I have never seen any evidence that could support a claim that they exist. If there is no evidence for something surely the best we can say is that it doesn't exist do you not think?

The alternative is to suggest that everyting exists, which I'm sure even you would agree is absurd.

Could you be more specific. What are you referring to by "ghost", and what does it mean to say they "exist"?